However, she continues to be incarcerated in Indonesia on death row and is therefore unable to travel to the Philippines to give evidence in the trial. The Court of Appeals of the Philippines (“CA”) has denied Ms. Veloso the ability to provide evidence in written form or via video-link.7 This is on the grounds that it would conflict with the constitutional right of an accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses face to face.® Instead, the CA has stated that the Philippine government should request permission from the Indonesian government for Ms. Veloso to travel to the Philippines to give evidence.9 This advisory argues that testimony via video-link is permitted in domestic law and should be widely accepted for vulnerable witnesses. This would not undermine fair trial procedures as technological advances would allow those accused to confront and crossexamine witnesses. THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN THE PHILIPPINES The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (hereafter ‘the Constitution’), as well as international treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 111, section 14(2) of the Constitution states that:1© “In all crimincl prosecutions, the accused...shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and ccunsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf [emphasis added].” The Rules of Criminal prosecutions:!! Procedure reiterate this right, stating that in all criminal “...Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.” Philippine domestic law is influenced by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 10 states that, “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and any criminal charges against him.”:2 Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that “everyone shall be entitled 7 Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius _. Lacanilao vs. Hon. Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes and People of the Philippines, CA-G.R. SP No. 149002, 5 July 2018. Full text is available at the Court of Appeals website, http://services.ca.judiciary.gov.ph/casestatusinguirywar/faces/jsp/view/ViewResult.isp Last accessed: 16 September 2019). 8 PHIL. CONST. % Maria Cristina art. I, s 14(2). P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao vs. Hon. Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes and People of the Philippines, CA-G.R. SP No. 149002, 5 July 2018, available at http://services.ca.judiciary.gov.ph/casestatusinquiry-war/faces/jsp/view/ViewResult.jsp (last accessed 12 September 2019). 10 PHIL. CONST. art. lll, s 14(2). o ! The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure [Rules of Criminal Procedure], Rule 115, § 1 (f) & (g) (2000). 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (ll1), art 10 (Dec. 10, 1948).